The head of the Water Institute of the Gulf, an independent think tank that provides science advice for Louisiana’s coastal restoration program, has been criticized for failing to disclose an industry board membership, casting a questionable light on a research paper. In an independent review of the matter commissioned by the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles "Chip" Groat taught, Groat is criticized for not reporting that he was on the board of a company involved in hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells while he oversaw a report on the dangers of the procedure.

Charles 'Chip' Groat, president and director of the Water Institute of the Gulf. The Water Institute of the Gulf

The review of the report found that Groat, a geologist and former
director of the Louisiana Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological
Survey, listed as the “principal investigator” for the study, did not report that he was a paid member of the board of directors of Plains
Exploration and Production, a company involved in hydraulic fracturing
activities, in the study or during a slide show presentation he made of
the study’s results at a February 2012 meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.

“The design,
management, review and release of the study that led to the report,
“Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas
Development,” fell short of contemporary standards for scientific work,”
the review committee said. “Primary among the shortcomings was the
failure of the principal investigator to disclose a conflict of interest
that could have had a bearing on the credibility a reader wished to
assign to the resulting work.”

The university study consisted mostly of a review of past studies and incidents involving hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, where an initial well is drilled vertically, and then curved to become horizontal through shale formations that contain oil and natural gas. Small explosive charges are then placed in the horizontal part of the well, where they fracture the shale. Water, chemicals and sand particles are pumped into the well to open the fractures and keep the materials flowing to the surface.

Concerns about the recently popular drilling method have been raised in a number of communities across the nation, including in Texas and Louisiana.

The committee found that the circumstances surrounding release of the report were exacerbated by the University’s own policy on conflicts of interest “that was poorly crafted and even less well enforced.” The University of Texas System rewrote its financial conflict of interest and disclosure rules earlier this year, after the controversy about the study first erupted.

It also found that a press release issued by the department, which concluded that concerns about fracking were overblown “did not reflect in a balanced fashion the caveats presented in the body of the report itself.”

The reviewers also concluded that Groat’s role in the study was to supervise those doing the work and that he did not attempt to influence their work.

During an interview Monday, Groat said that in hindsight, he should have disclosed his interest in the oil company.

“When this report process started, my role was to organize the team, pull the people together, put a process in place, and not to manage them day to day,” he said. Groat said he didn’t even read the report before it was released.

“There was no way for me to influence them, even if I had wanted to,” he said.

Groat also agreed that the report was a draft in nature. While it did discount concerns about the fracturing process itself causing problems, Groat said, it included a number of concerns about other parts of the drilling process, including spills of fracking chemicals at the surface and leaks from disposal of used water and chemicals in separate underground wells.

Both the study reviewers and Groat said controversies surrounding research on energy issues, such as those surrounding the fracking report, are a result of researchers whose history often includes work with energy companies, and the controversy surrounding the energy issues in general. But both conclude that conflicts are difficult to avoid.

“The Review Committee also recognizes, and even emphasizes, that it would be unreasonable to deny the public the benefit of research conducted by institutions or individuals who are deeply immersed in a field in which geographical or other circumstances that contribute to their expertise also contrive to raise concerns over potential conflicts of interest,” the review report said.

“Particularly in this day and age when more and more funding for academic research is coming from the private sector, whether it be energy, the pharmacology industry, telecommunications, or whatever,” the potential for conflicts becomes elevated, Groat said. “To many people, that support implies bias that affects the outcome of results that they think is not appropriate. The perception is that it’s guilt by association, and makes the validity of funding of research questionable in some people’s eyes.”

The review of the controversy surrounding the study’s release was conducted by a distinguished group of industry leaders and academics: Norman Augustine, chairman and chief executive of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Rita Colwell, a biology professor at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University and former director of the National Science Foundation; and James Duderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan and a professor of science and engineering there.

Groat retired from the University of Texas in November. In February, before the release of the fracking report, he was hired by the new Louisiana water institute on a half-time basis.

Public criticism of the report and the Texas university began soon after the report was released. Groat agreed to expand his role with the institute to full time in June, but said Monday that the decision was not related to the controversy.